Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
CofCinci

Serial

Recommended Posts

 

I love, love, love this podcast, but I did not love Episode 11.

 

I agree.  It was rather all over the place!  And felt kind of filler-ish?

 

So what do we think will happen next week?  An update from the Innocence Project?  A revisiting of the hard evidence after an episode focused on people's opinions?  Will SK tell us what she thinks the answer is after more than a year of working on this case?  Some combination of the above?

 

And will it be a loooooong episode? I hope so!

Share this post


Link to post

I liked the episode because I thought it showed that even the worst someone can say about Adnan (petty theft) is basically pretty tame stuff that many many teenagers do especially in that age range of middle school, to test boundaries and the head of the mosques was like....eh.

 

But I have to say Adnan's letter to Sarah got to me. A lot. I cried. That bit about not wanting to show compassion out of fear of being perceived as "manipulative"? I just can't believe this guy has run this good a con for 15 years w/o cracking. Not once. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't mind the episode, I can't work out how it'll be wrapped up in one episode though. I assume we're all in for a let of questions left unanswered.

 

I liked that this episode showed the difference between psychopath, sociopath and regular people and that most murderers are the latter.. it's a bit scary to know that people can just snap and then realise what they've done but it's also good to know that most people in the world are decent people that did a bad thing rather than bad people that enjoy doing bad things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure how I felt about this episode -- it definitely felt like a response to the response to the podcast.  Sarah talking about how difficult and rude her questions to Adnan had been, his feelings about her "investigation" and his approach to her, the rumours that have surfaced in direct response to the podcast.  In a way, I appreciate that but in another way I almost wish the entire series had been put together before it aired and they couldn't respond, so we could see how this unfurled in a vacuum.  Both as a story and as a phenomenon, the whole Serial experience is really interesting.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, question on episode 11. I feel silly for asking, but Sarah mentioned a rumor and went to a guy's house to ask if it was true. Did she say what the rumor was? Or am I dumb and was it just the stealing money from the mosque or something else mentioned?

Share this post


Link to post

She didn't say, it was unsubstantiated, and given that it wasn't of the "stole a pair of pants" variety I'd guess to avoid defamation she didn't wasn't about to mention it on air. Adnan admitted he stole the money so that was obviously substantiated.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

So the last episode is called "What We Know." This doesn't make me optimistic for a resolution or bombshell (which was unlikely anyway, but I want to hope). It sounds like a rehash of the first 11 episodes....

 

The Slate podcast said SK may have underestimated how much ownership people have in the story. I agree. Realistically, a lot of listeners will be disappointed tomorrow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would think I would only be disappointed if it was only a recap/summary. I don't need a bombshell, but something new. Some interview, some fact, something. Or if it was really short, that would be sad too. It would be so irresponsible to leave someone sitting in jail waiting for the final episode of a podcast to release the key to the crime for entertainment value. I don't think anything like that should or will happen.

I can imagine a follow up episode in a year or so after the innocence project finishes or after the appeal. Either way, I'm trying to get excited for tomorrow even if I can't imagine what new info there will be.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd say I ended up in the same place I've been for a few weeks: I think Adnan did it or was involved, but that the evidence presented at trial wasn't sufficient for a legitimate conviction. But it will be interesting to see if there is any DNA that they can test, and if it points to another person in the scenario.

 

It was a good listen for the last couple months, and I'll miss hearing Sarah Koenig's voice every week!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so I wasn't disappointed! I think she wrapped it up pretty well, with some new details, but no bombshell. As well as she could have.
 

I don't think the Innocence Project's theory is correct, although I agree that the DNA should be tested. Trying to pin it on a serial killer is the best way to get it tested, hence "the big picture" comment.

Edited by ExplainItAgain
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am overall satisfied she covered the big points, I appreciate that she circled back to previous evidence to give it new light, and that she didn't cop out of giving both a legal and general opinion on his case. I know we can't KNOW, but what do you THINK Sarah, and she did give me that, and it's what she's communicated for 12 episodes so yeah satisfying.

 

I did kind of shake my head at her "revelation" that both/and could be lying, uh c'mon Sarah that seemed obvious to me. I think Adnan is innocent and still not being completely honest. Like Dana saying he "happened" to loan his car to Jay *that* day, no several people said he loaned his car to Jay all the time. It wasn't a coincidence it was a regular thing, So, YES, Adnan has been misrepresenting the depth if not the *quality* of his relationship with Jay. I don't believe SK didn't "know" this a year ago or when they put the first episode together.

 

I also wasn't really with Julie's whole break down of the 3:21 call, instead of concluding what I think is the obvious answer about why Jay would be calling Jenn's land line when he's at her house, being Jay and Jenn, two people who admit to having lied,  are y'know LYING, they jump to Adnan had the phone, no one including Jay/Jenn even say this. Like what? Okay Julie.

 

 

I don't think the Innocence Project's theory is correct, although I agree that the DNA should be tested.

 

I think Deidre doesn't really either, which is why she had that Big Picture comment to Sarah. Let us move from what we don't even know we don't know (untested evidence) to knowing what we know (tested evidence). the point is to find out if someone NOT Adnan's is there, is there some other person's DNA in play be it Jay, Ron Moore, Mr. S, who the hell ever. 

 

I just don't think they'll find ANY DNA, 15  years later I don't see it happening. 

Share this post


Link to post

Today's episode still confirms the theory I've had for quite a few weeks now - I've thought that Adnan asked Jay to kill Hae, and that Jay just turned on him because he got scared of going to prison.  That's why I've always thought Adnan was so insistent about looking at the evidence and that it doesn't point to him (because he knows he didn't physically kill her), but also why his story didn't add up entirely.  That's why I think he's ok with getting the DNA tested (if there's still any left to find) - he knows his won't be there.

 

I think producer Dana and I are on the same page - if he didn't do it, then he's the unluckiest man on the planet.  

 

That all being said, I still agree with SK's conclusion of "If I were a juror, I'd acquit."  If I had heard that evidence at trial, I don't think it would've been enough to convince me that he did it beyond all reasonable doubt.  

Edited by Princess Sparkle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I thought many parts of this episode were written really nicely, I liked it a lot. I was a nice balance of new information and recap, opinions and facts.  I also really liked her explanation of why you can't report on unsupported theories, because like ExplainItAgain said earlier, the audience has gotten so over invested that they (we) almost need to be reminded why they are not getting attention.  The beginning was really nice too, where Adnan asks her if she has an ending.  I almost wonder if she fed him that line, but I don't care either way.  It worked really nicely.

 

For those worried about Koenig withdrawl, you can search for her episodes on the This American Life website.  There's one about Penn State where she is reporting from her front porch about college students peeing all around her neighborhood and causing a ruckus.  It's pretty great.

Edited by AndreaK1041
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I also wasn't really with Julie's whole break down of the 3:21 call, instead of concluding what I think is the obvious answer about why Jay would be calling Jenn's land line when he's at her house, being Jay and Jenn, two people who admit to having lied,  are y'know LYING, they jump to Adnan had the phone, no one including Jay/Jenn even say this. Like what? Okay Julie.

 

Yes! God, that drove me crazy. I was poring over the phone records (this is a good resource http://viewfromll2.com/2014/11/23/serial-a-comparison-of-adnans-cell-phone-records-and-the-witness-statements-provided-by-adnan-jay-jenn-and-cathy/) and cell tower pings last week, and everything to me pointed to Jay having the phone at that time, which was probably around the time of the actual murder (since everyone agrees it wasn't 2:46), and why would he be calling Jenn's home if he were there? He wasn't there. He was out, with the phone. (And potentially Hae...)

 

I was so glad they delved into the Nisha call, because that was one question I had -- could a butt dial (or an accidental dial during a struggle?) that kept ringing and ringing have been logged and billed? Sure enough, it could have. That's pretty big.

 

I think the phone records also show something else that I don't think anyone mentioned. In the evening, when Adnan definitely has his phone back (he calls Nisha, Yaser, etc), he has an 8-minute conversation with Krista, who is also friends with Hae. A lot of people have made a big deal over the fact that Adnan didn't try to contact Hae when she went missing, but Adnan claims that he didn't bother because he was in contact with all her friends. Hae didn't have a cell phone, only a pager, so it's not like he could call her and see if she'd pick up. Seems to me there's a good chance Adnan and Krista were discussing Hae's disappearance that night. I wish someone would ask Krista and Adnan if they remembered that conversation. I also feel that if Adnan were really this genius sociopath, then he would have specifically pretended to page her to make it *look* like he was trying to find out where she was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so this thing should have been "panthergirl-nip"... I was a CourtTV addict in the Menendez Brothers' trial days (pre-OJ), was glued to Jodi Arias, etc. 

 

But I found myself underwhelmed in the end, and not just BY the end. I don't know if it was Sarah Koenig's delivery (that "I'm reading from a page" cadence) but I would find myself easily distracted, having to rewind and listen to sections a second time, and ultimately unsatisfied by her mundane conclusion.

 

The case itself should have been really compelling to me, but I was never inclined to look at the supporting documents, listen to podcasts-about-the-podcast, or even read this forum. These are things I would have done if it lived up to the hype for me.

 

Is it just me? (my favorite episode was the shortest one... the one about the Innocence Project. Now THAT I'm interested in.)

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so I wasn't disappointed! I think she wrapped it up pretty well, with some new details, but no bombshell. As well as she could have.

 

I don't think the Innocence Project's theory is correct, although I agree that the DNA should be tested. Trying to pin it on a serial killer is the best way to get it tested, hence "the big picture" comment.

I think you're right about IP's rationale here. IANAL disclaimer, but it seems like they were saying they just needed enough justification to request DNA testing, and who knows: they might find enough to justify further appeals on Adnan's behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
I also wasn't really with Julie's whole break down of the 3:21 call, instead of concluding what I think is the obvious answer about why Jay would be calling Jenn's land line when he's at her house, being Jay and Jenn, two people who admit to having lied,  are y'know LYING, they jump to Adnan had the phone, no one including Jay/Jenn even say this. Like what? Okay Julie.

 

 

Their refusal to even consider the possibility that Jay killed Hae with Adnan or alone is a glaring misstep in the podcast, I think. I understand why they can't outright say they think he did, but I think it would have been ok for them to investigate the possibility. And, to me, reading between the lines, this is exactly what Sarah Koenig believes happened. 

 

The sidestepping around the issue really annoyed me this episode. 

Edited by Hava
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

Their refusal to even consider the possibility that Jay killed Hae with Adnan or alone is a glaring misstep in the podcast, I think. I understand why they can't outright say they think he did, but I think it would have been ok for them to investigate the possibility. And, to me, reading between the lines, this is exactly what Sarah Koenig believes happened.

The sidestepping around the issue really annoyed me this episode.

Edited by Hava, Today. 1:21 am.

 

Ha. Yes, that's why it's deeply satisfying to read Susan Simpson's blog where she just shreds Jay as a witness ( http://viewfromll2.com/2014/12/02/serial-more-details-about-jays-transcripts-than-you-could-possibly-need/ ). The lengths the cops went to to NOT investigate Jay (not talking to Jenn's brohter, or Patrick or to Phil, not searching his home or the locations where he dumped evidence)  the first time are so egregious, that it was frustrating to not hear Sarah just go at him in direct rather than passive and oblique ways. Maybe that's a consequence of the legal and ethical lines she and NPR felt they had to walk, but  yeah, the big moment that bothered me was her really softballing Jay. It was a dick move to just show up, but it was wuss move not to then actually play hardball with him when he asks Who else if not Adnan? She never addresses his multiple bs stories, she never asks HIM what the utility of his lies are. That episode was the low point of the podcast for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

As much as you could say there is not enough evidence to convict Adnan, I think you must equally say there is not enough evidence to convict Jay.  Yes, he's lying. He's lying A LOT.  And the police didn't investigate him as a suspect, so there may be evidence that was just not collected.  But 15 years after the fact to go so far as to accuse a real person living their real life when you have no evidence to do so is a bit harsh.  I think she did enough to cast doubt on him, but to say "he did it"... there's no proof.  

 

Also, I think Jay was pretty generous to invite them into his home.  I do not see another option other than telling him why there were there (which really pissed him off, according to them), and asking if he'd like to comment or be interviewed in the future.  She can't go in there all "IS IT NOT", and expect to get anywhere with him I wouldn't think.  Plus, she was trying to get him to agree to further interviews, so I can only assume kid gloves were used.

 

It would be AMAZING to hear from Jay now, and get some real answers, but I don't think she had the opportunity to actually ask the questions. 

Share this post


Link to post

Also, I think Jay was pretty generous to invite them into his home.  I do not see another option other than telling him why there were there (which really pissed him off, according to them), and asking if he'd like to comment or be interviewed in the future.  She can't go in there all "IS IT NOT", and expect to get anywhere with him I wouldn't think.  Plus, she was trying to get him to agree to further interviews, so I can only assume kid gloves were used.

 

I got that impression too--she was hoping that if she was polite and used a "just here to set the record straight, no accusations" tone, then Jay might call her back later and allow an interview (which is what happened with Don, I believe). If that had happened, it would have made it all worthwhile. Since it didn't, it would have made more sense to go hardball on Jay while she had the chance. 20/20 hindsight, I guess.

 

I also wonder about her choice of whose last names she mentioned and who got to go by first names only. Jay's last name was a matter of public record, and pretty easy to find, I'd imagine. So why the Cher/Madonna-esque use of only "Jay"? IMO it goes back to Sarah bending over backwards to accommodate him, knowing he was the key to the whole case, and really, really hoping he'd eventually consent to an interview.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
I also wonder about her choice of whose last names she mentioned and who got to go by first names only.

 

Agreed. I kept trying to figure out if there was a pattern to who got first name only treatment and who didn't. It just seemed weird to me that we got Jen's full name, for example, but not Jay's. I mean, they both testified, both had conversations w/ Sarah during the reporting process...it just made me wonder every time I listened what the calculus was for which names to use.

 

In all, I was really impressed with the final episode. I thought for sure the predictions that she'd take a pass on sharing her own opinion would play out (and got a kick out of Adnan basically saying the same thing) and I'm glad she didn't do that--I appreciated that she shared some new information, gave some relevant updates, and wrapped it up with the acknowledgement that she didn't find a smoking gun...that this case is just a mess. It's entirely possible Adnan did it, but the dearth of hard evidence leaves a Grand Canyon sized area of reasonable doubt. I'd really love to know how many of the jurors have been listening and whether they feel the same way now that they did then.

 

And lord have mercy, I hope they get some DNA out of this old evidence. Whichever way it goes, I just hope that clarity and peace can come for all of the people who have been living with this for 15 years.

 

Finally--I stumbled upon this interview with Hae for the local news which, unbelievably, was apparently filmed the day she disappeared. I also hope that everyone who has latched on to this case with such vigor--me included--remembers that this is at its core a story about a girl who was taken from her family and friends far too soon. 

Edited by hendersonrocks
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I've been wondering a couple things about this case. If Adnan is really innocent and thinks Jay did, then why wouldn't he say that at some point? I've read that he doesn't want to subject anyone to the same thing that's happened to him and falsely accuse someone, but that seems like a flimsy reason. I think people that are saying he can't do this because he and Jay did it together are probably right. Giving out more information about Jay would also mean further incriminating himself. I think Jay's stories change so many times because he is trying to minimize his involvement.

 

The other thing I've been wondering about is that some people involved with the case have mentioned either on the podcast or on Reddit that they can't get involved because they're worried about something happening to them. Supposedly this is why we never heard from Stephanie. So if Adnan is guilty and he's sentenced to life in prison, who is it that these people are afraid of? Asia mentioned that she was coerced into writing the affidavit from people in Adnan's community. Is this who they're afraid of? This plus the fact that it's been suggested that the police might have been the ones to give Jay information about where the car was before they began tape recording his testimony makes me wonder if there isn't some third party involved. Then I wonder if reading a bit on Reddit has made me fall way too far down the rabbit-hole with conspiracy theories.

 

I have to say that I didn't find this podcast as compelling as others seem to. I think part of it was that I found all the information and stories so hard to keep track of and didn't really take that much time to go over the timeline or do too much reading about the case online. I'm sure it was incredibly difficult for Sarah to organize all the information she had. I wonder if she could have organized it in a different way that would have made it easier to follow, but I can't really think of how else she could have done it.

 

I think the JonBenet Ramsey case could be really interesting for season 2, but they would never do it. It's way too high-profile and has been discussed so much already.

Edited by wudpixie

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think the JonBenet Ramsey case could be really interesting for season 2, but they would never do it. It's way too high-profile and has been discussed so much already.

Plus the fact the when Pasty Ramsey was alive they filed many defamation lawsuits against publications who would accuse them.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen the Funny or Die one yet, but Saturday Night Live absolutely nailed their parody this weekend. I was laughing so hard I cried (while my non-Serial listening husband had no idea WTF was going on). Absolutely incredible impersonations of SK and Adnan through the phone.

 

Edited by hendersonrocks
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

And don't forget the Guitierrez impersonation!  And "Mail...Kimp?" at the end! Hilarious.

Edited by Janc
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Poor Mail Kimp girl.. I feel sorry for her forever :P They made a joke of it in the Funny or Die one as well.

 

The SNL one is better, well they're different.. the Funny or Die is about the final episode and how to end it all (I assume prior to it ending) whereas SNL is a parody of the show overall.

 

While I find it all funny sometimes I feel bad for jokes being made about something that affects real people right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
While I find it all funny sometimes I feel bad for jokes being made about something that affects real people right now.

 

So, so true. Even as someone absorbing all the Serial stories I can find (I even ventured into Reddit for the first time ever...shudder), I feel uncomfortable with it. A teenage girl is dead; her family wanted no part of this--yet here we all are. This--Serial--has happened to them, and I imagine they are going through horrible grief and loss all over again...to the extent that it ever really goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
but Saturday Night Live absolutely nailed their parody this weekend.

 

 

Completely agree. It was fantastic! It was clear that the SNL writers are actually fans of the show because a lot of the jokes were nuanced (like Adnan's way of speaking and dodging) and not obvious. I really like and appreciate that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

So, so true. Even as someone absorbing all the Serial stories I can find (I even ventured into Reddit for the first time ever...shudder), I feel uncomfortable with it. A teenage girl is dead; her family wanted no part of this--yet here we all are. This--Serial--has happened to them, and I imagine they are going through horrible grief and loss all over again...to the extent that it ever really goes away.

 

Especially since they've probably taken solace in the idea that the perpetrator was caught and justice was served. So for them, digging up all this old trauma doesn't serve any purpose other than to rip a scab off their huge wound. I just hope there's a small piece of them that would never want the wrong person serving time for their daughter's/sister's murder (if, in fact, Adnan is the wrong guy) so from that sense they can somewhat come to terms with the renewed attention. Must be really hard, though...

 

 

I've watched the SNL parody around 5 times. Much funnier than the Funny or Die sketch.

Christmas Magic

 

I actually thought Funny or Die was funnier, so I guess it's a YMMV, but both of them were really hilarious. The "Adnan" in SNL was totally spot on--almost kind of eerie.

Share this post


Link to post

Especially since they've probably taken solace in the idea that the perpetrator was caught and justice was served. So for them, digging up all this old trauma doesn't serve any purpose other than to rip a scab off their huge wound. I just hope there's a small piece of them that would never want the wrong person serving time for their daughter's/sister's murder (if, in fact, Adnan is the wrong guy) so from that sense they can somewhat come to terms with the renewed attention. Must be really hard, though...

Agreed. To be fair, as a "true crime" piece Serial seems to have kept Hae front of mind and importance more than many stories. (As opposed to having her as a non-descript victim of limited consequence to the narrative.)

Share this post


Link to post

I had wondered if we'd ever see an interview with Jay, post-Serial, but why on earth is he changing his story again?  Like saying they left her car behind some row houses... it was at the park and ride, there's pictures of it at the park and ride, Jay told the police it was there and took them to it... claiming the car was left elsewhere now makes no sense!

Share this post


Link to post

I had wondered if we'd ever see an interview with Jay, post-Serial, but why on earth is he changing his story again?  Like saying they left her car behind some row houses... it was at the park and ride, there's pictures of it at the park and ride, Jay told the police it was there and took them to it... claiming the car was left elsewhere now makes no sense!

 

Right?! The guy is a pathological liar. He could just have stuck to one of his previous stories and been done with it, but instead he decides to come up with yet another version? Amazing!

 

And to what end? If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think he was trying to help Adnan out. Considering Adnan's whole case hinges on Jay's testimony, and now Jay is a.) essentially admitting he lied under oath and b.) changing his story again, making him even less credible, I'd think it would be something Adnan's defense could latch onto if they're gunning for a review of the case/new trial.

 

ETA: I'm actually really surprised he consented to an interview. Considering he got a great deal despite admitting to being involved, and the podcast got a lot of people newly wondering exactly *how much* he was involved, seems to me he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut and waiting for the focus to wane.

Edited by ElleBee
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Right?! The guy is a pathological liar. He could just have stuck to one of his previous stories and been done with it, but instead he decides to come up with yet another version? Amazing!

And to what end? If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think he was trying to help Adnan out. Considering Adnan's whole case hinges on Jay's testimony, and now Jay is a.) essentially admitting he lied under oath and b.) changing his story again, making him even less credible, I'd think it would be something Adnan's defense could latch onto if they're gunning for a review of the case/new trial.

ETA: I'm actually really surprised he consented to an interview. Considering he got a great deal despite admitting to being involved, and the podcast got a lot of people newly wondering exactly *how much* he was involved, seems to me he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut and waiting for the focus to wane.

Yeah, I was surprised he spoke. It can not help him. Every time he talks he looks like an even bigger liar.

If I was him I would if just shut up and let things pass.

I'm not convinced that Adnan is innocent, but the more I hear from Jay I wonder if Jay had more to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post

I just finished the first four of the episodes right now....I really liked the playing of "All My Life" by K-Ci & JoJo. Really brings you back to that late 90's era. It  did a great job of making Hae Lee feel real, knowing that was a song she associated with her junior prom. I really like that Sarah went out of her way to paint a portrait of Hae- just a normal teenage girl, enjoying the rush of first loves and crushes, and having a relatively mundane teenage life with its regular angst and joys until she was killed. I have sisters that were born in 1981 and 1982, respecitvely, so they were in high school at the same time that Hae was.

 

I can't believe Jay's not keeping his mouth shut and riding out the renewed interest in the case. He does realize that statue of limitations doesn't apply to murder, right? Geez. He screams "lying famewhore", and the case is probably bigger than its ever been because of the show, so he just can't resist.

 

Over on Reddit, there's a theory that Jenn and Jay did it, because they were having an affair and Hae threatened to tell Stephanie. It's an interesting read.

 

It's fascinating, but man I feel for Hae's family and her friends. They have to be re-living all of it all over again.

 

If the next season just needs to be about a murder and not a murder mystery, I thought the Matthew Silliman murder would make a great season 2. That is one coldly plotted murder. Someone on Reddit posted that they were invited by the people who murdered Matthew to go paintballing with them on the night they murdered him. It has a lot of great elements to it- youth, sex, teenage jealousy, teenage cruelty, and the treatment of mental illness.

Edited by methodwriter85

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. I've been largely offline for the last week and so had NO idea about this Jay interview. Ditto methodwriter85...I can't believe he's gone this route and is changing the story again. It looks like there is one part left to publish, and I would love if the writer actually asks him some challenging follow up questions. I mean, he said the car was parked behind row houses but then we've got nothing about how he led police to a park & ride weeks after the fact. I might also be biased because she--the writer--seems particularly, ahhhh, annoying as hell.

I happened to watch a random episode of The Wire a few days ago, and just about fell out when one of the main characters made a joke in a Baltimore PD meeting about the bodies buried in Leakin Park.

ETA: The third and final installment of Jay's interview was posted. He comes across pretty poorly while SK (via emails) looks completely fair, in my opinion.

Edited by hendersonrocks

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that Jay's definition of being threatened seems really bizarre after seeing Sarah's emails. Maybe he's just really paranoid.

Rabia is releasing trial transcripts that I have been reading (I think I went in the wrong profession if I find these things interesting). They are from the first trial, the mistrial, but I still think the State's case is stronger than Serial made it seem. The fact that two people plus Adnan himself said that he asked Hae for a ride that day is really suspicious. Additionally, he told the grief councilor that Hae called him the day before she went missing saying she wanted to get back together (from what we know of her and Don at that time, that seems extremely unlikely). I have red flags reading those new bits, and yet still: reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post

 

ETA: The third and final installment of Jay's interview was posted. He comes across pretty poorly while SK (via emails) looks completely fair, in my opinion.

 

I do feel for the guy that his life has been negatively effected by this in the past few months... but at the same time, so much whining and finger pointing!  All reddit's fault, all SK's fault, all Stephanie's fault and so on.  I'd have a lot more sympathy for the guy if he was saying "I made a mistake back then, I'll own up to it" instead of presenting a new version of events and complaining about being "demonized".  SK and the Serial team come across as very reasonable and professional in all those emails, Jay remains a puzzle.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. Jay does not come across well. At the very least, by his own admission he helped cover up a murder and he thinks that won't follow him the rest of his life? I don't mean to sound cruel, but that's never going to stop being a part of your life. It's not a traffic ticket or a pot bust. You were part of a murder. And nobody has to leak court documents. They're a part of public record. Jay has no reasonable (legally speaking or practically speaking) expectation of privacy. He comes across as kind of nuts.

All that being said. I'm not sure I believe Anon is innocent. I don't think he ever should have been convicted, but....

For me the case has always hinged on 2 things that didn't actually get a ton of attention on the podcast, but stuck with me. 1) we have no reliable time of death for Hae. None. We know vaguely when she wasn't dead, but that it. PD uses that Best Buy call as a time of death, but there isn't any physical evidence to support it so I just threw it out around episode 2. In my mind Hae could have been killed anytime after school. 2) Stephanie's b-day present. This is totally a gut feeling, but I have always thought Anon is lying about this. It just feels wrong you know? That at 17, Anon was so worried about this that he gave a casual friend his car and cell phone so Jay could buy a present. I don't think SK bought it either, but she didn't really push it much. The simplest explanation is that Anon sent Jay to buy weed and didn't want to tell that to police, but why keep lying about it? If that's all it is I think Anon would have said so when he was arrested or at least by now. It's not a secret worth protecting when you're facing a murder charge. I think it's possible that Anon either hired Jay to kill Hae or gave him money to buy Anon a gun. Jay takes the money but doesn't do whatever he was supposed to do and keeps stringing Anon along (that might account for all the back and forth with the cell) at some point Anon straggled Hae (maybe Jay was there. Maybe that's what the whole disappearing story about the state park was? Maybe they took her there and that's where she was killed?). Jay helps Anon get rid of the body because he was somehow involved with setting it up. All speculation of course.

Edited by FozzyBear

Share this post


Link to post

I find it really interesting that the jury that was polled after the mistrial said that they would vote to acquit.  Now that I've read the 3 days of testimony that occurred, my conclusion is that either there was some significant difference in the way the trial was presented or that the juries had a completely different mindset.  The first trial consisted only of opening statements and then the prosecution got through about 75% of their case.  They heard from various medical people saying Hae was strangled, was buried, that her blood was found in the car, that Adnan's palm print was found in the car, etc.  Then they heard from various people from the school including what happened at the Homecoming dance, how Adnan was acting after the body was found (that witness wasn't allowed in the second trial, but just on reading it her credentials are extensive and she strongly felt he was faking his reactions as his mood was changing based on who was in the room) They heard from a teacher who said Hae once hid from Adnan after they argued. They heard from Don.  They heard from "Cathy" who I thought was fairly compelling as a witness. Then of course they heard from Jay and they heard Jay get cross-examined where they spend a lot of time with "so you lied, did you not?" "Yes, Ma'am.".  

 

I wonder how different the second trial's cross of Jay was for them to still believe him.  I wonder how it was handled differently.  I guess I will find out!  The second trial documents will be released soon.  I was just surprised that the first trial never got to hear any defense witnesses. Or maybe Jenn Pusateri is also a compelling witness, because the 1st group didn't get to hear from her.

 

It was also crazy to me how much the judge was pushing for them to move quickly. I know absolutely nothing about criminal trials, but at the end of the day, each of the 3 days he scolded the attorneys for not being more efficient.  He even responded to a "no further questions" with something like "thank god for that", and commented during questioning that he was "trying to get out of there this millennium".  Is that normal to say, hey Christmas is coming let's be super efficient with this First Degree Murder trial?  The defense was even given a specific amount of time they were allowed to cross-examine Jay.  I didn't realize that was a thing.

 

ETA: the first jury also hadn't heard any cell record/cell tower testimony.  Maybe that felt like compelling "physical" evidence to the 2nd jury.

Edited by AndreaK1041

Share this post


Link to post

I find it really interesting that the jury that was polled after the mistrial said that they would vote to acquit. Now that I've read the 3 days of testimony that occurred, my conclusion is that either there was some significant difference in the way the trial was presented or that the juries had a completely different mindset. The first trial consisted only of opening statements and then the prosecution got through about 75% of their case. They heard from various medical people saying Hae was strangled, was buried, that her blood was found in the car, that Adnan's palm print was found in the car, etc. Then they heard from various people from the school including what happened at the Homecoming dance, how Adnan was acting after the body was found (that witness wasn't allowed in the second trial, but just on reading it her credentials are extensive and she strongly felt he was faking his reactions as his mood was changing based on who was in the room) They heard from a teacher who said Hae once hid from Adnan after they argued. They heard from Don. They heard from "Cathy" who I thought was fairly compelling as a witness. Then of course they heard from Jay and they heard Jay get cross-examined where they spend a lot of time with "so you lied, did you not?" "Yes, Ma'am.".

I wonder how different the second trial's cross of Jay was for them to still believe him. I wonder how it was handled differently. I guess I will find out! The second trial documents will be released soon. I was just surprised that the first trial never got to hear any defense witnesses. Or maybe Jenn Pusateri is also a compelling witness, because the 1st group didn't get to hear from her.

It was also crazy to me how much the judge was pushing for them to move quickly. I know absolutely nothing about criminal trials, but at the end of the day, each of the 3 days he scolded the attorneys for not being more efficient. He even responded to a "no further questions" with something like "thank god for that", and commented during questioning that he was "trying to get out of there this millennium". Is that normal to say, hey Christmas is coming let's be super efficient with this First Degree Murder trial? The defense was even given a specific amount of time they were allowed to cross-examine Jay. I didn't realize that was a thing.

ETA: the first jury also hadn't heard any cell record/cell tower testimony. Maybe that felt like compelling "physical" evidence to the 2nd jury.

I can imagine that the cell phone is pretty big issue for both juries and one that could sway a jury that had been on the fence. As I see it the cell phone presents 3 issues.

1) the cell tower records are close to the only piece of physical/scientific/independent evidence involved with this case. Without them it's pretty much narrative. Jay says this happened, Adnon says Jay is lying. Neither party really has much in the way of proof to back them up. To a jury trying to decide if they belive Jay or Adnon, these records could have been powerful evidence and if the defense didn't do a great job of picking them apart they could have felt like the key evidence needed to decide the case.

2) the very existence of the cell phone could have played into racial prejudices of the jury. It's 1999, cell phones are more common, but still not a standard utility. Adnon is a minority kid who doesn't come from a rich family and goes to a rough school. The very fact he had a cell phone could have made him look like a thug to some members of the jury.

3) it's suspicious that Jay even has it and Adnon's explanation doesn't sound right. Even if we believe the b-day present story, why give Jay the phone? Why not just tell Jay to pick him up after track? As I said, in 1999, a cell phone would have been an expensive toy to loan out to your casual friend/drug dealer over an errand as nonsensical as a last minute gift, especially when Adnon could have told Jay exactly when and where to pick him up (after track). It makes it look like they were conspiring together to do something, at least.

Share this post


Link to post

Natasha Vargas-Cooper and Ken Silverstein at The Intercept, who had the Jay interview, now has an interview with prosecutor Kevin Uric. It starts with a long, crazy statement that juries are never wrong and basically accuses Sarah Koenig of not being a real journalist, then has Uric saying "no of course we didn't do anything wrong." Part 2 not posted yet.

 

Here's some good reactions: Martin Austermuhle, Anna Silman (Salon).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Natasha Vargas-Cooper and Ken Silverstein at The Intercept, who had the Jay interview, now has an interview with prosecutor Kevin Uric. It starts with a long, crazy statement that juries are never wrong and basically accuses Sarah Koenig of not being a real journalist, then has Uric saying "no of course we didn't do anything wrong." Part 2 not posted yet.

Here's some good reactions: Martin Austermuhle, Anna Silman (Salon).

The Intercept articles are some odd shit. I really don't get it. I don't think Serial is or should be beyond reproach and I disagree with many of the conclusion and focus the show had, but The Intercept stuff is bizarre. Why wouldn't they listen to the podcast before writing about it? They were free and contain less than 12 hours of content. If they hadn't listen to them on what were they basing their opinions about Serial's bias or agenda? And if they are so upset about this case being possibly used as an entertainment why take such a flippant tone in the tweets? There seems to be a high level of personal offense written into these articles. Why? Why are they so personally offended by Serial? And if that's not the case, what were they trying to convey? The whole thing is really strange. Immature is my first response, but honestly I just don't get it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ha I got into it with NVC on Reddit. I thought her "interview" with Jay could of have been more....thorough, but was glad she let his mouth right all the checks. Then the New York Observer did a puff piece on her which made her come off like a real world Cool Girl/famehore (accusing Serial fans of "creaming" over Serial just like The Wire).  She started posting in twee internet speak on Reddit when people expressed disdain for *that* piece which put her immediately into the center of the story about a story about a story, and she's never really recovered in my eyes as  a serious journalist I can respect (that group is fairly tiny, YAY MM).

 

The Urick piece was just laughably bad, as Martin Austermuhle pointed out, being adversarial just to be adversarial isn't substantive, it's juvenile.

 

ETA: the flippant stuff is just her personality it appears, it's performed to maintain some kind of ironic distance, but Redditors, being what they are went in hard for her because of the Observer piece and her Reddit posts, her overall stylistic "tone", and she's been doing her best to audition for a role on Girls ever since. She's obnoxious and grating, but I think she just wanted to drum up a reputation by showing up TAL/SK/NPR, questioning even their vaunted journalistic ethics.

Edited by blixie

Share this post


Link to post

Natasha Vargas-Cooper and Ken Silverstein at The Intercept, who had the Jay interview, now has an interview with prosecutor Kevin Uric. It starts with a long, crazy statement that juries are never wrong and basically accuses Sarah Koenig of not being a real journalist, then has Uric saying "no of course we didn't do anything wrong." Part 2 not posted yet.

 

Here's some good reactions: Martin Austermuhle, Anna Silman (Salon).

 

Okay, so I'm not going to read that article because anything/one that begins with "juries are never wrong" is too stupid to spend time on.  Thanks for the head's up.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×